> On 26 Sep 2019, at 17:17, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 12:08:35 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 25 Sep 2019, at 09:55, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:25:58 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 08:16, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> >> Many Worlds leads Sean Carroll to speculate about the morality of duplicated >> selves when they bach off into other worlds. >> >> Sean Carroll >> @seanmcarroll >> https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168 >> <https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1176617631408775168> >> >> Congressional votes do not *cause* the wave function to branch, but unlikely >> quantum events can bring into existence branches where classically unlikely >> outcomes have occurred. A nucleus might decay in the right Representative's >> brain at just the right time, etc. >> >> He asks: >> >> "If You Existed in Multiple Universes, How Would You Act In This One?" >> >> >> https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/ >> >> <https://lithub.com/if-you-existed-in-multiple-universes-how-would-you-act-in-this-one/> >> (From Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime >> by Sean Carroll) >> >> >> But he gives away the game here: >> >> "To each individual on some branch of the wave function, life goes on just >> as if they lived in a single world with truly stochastic quantum events." >> >> Maybe there's a Sean Carroll branch that loves stochasticity. >> >> Many Worlds (a religion, or quasi-religion, but not science) is >> fundamentally an anti-probabilities superstition. And anti-materialist as >> well. Those who think we are pure information - platotonist bits - have no >> problem with the idea of multiple copies of things here and now being made, >> because there is no new material needed. >> >> (The religious aspect of Many Worlds has been made apparent with the >> promotion - Carroll's own tweets, for example - of the book.) >> >> Pro-deterministic is not anti-probability. Also, pro-materialistic is no >> less “religious” than anti-materialistic, since there is no way to know that >> a true material world does or does not exist. When it comes to deciding >> which interpretation of reality to prefer, one can either use aesthetic >> considerations (Occam’s razor) or refuse to engage in discussion. >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> >> >> What I know is that materials science taught in universities, applied in >> technology companies. >> >> But nonmaterials "science" is taught in theology schools, and has no >> applications. > > > You are right. And for a millenium; theology needed a cursus in mathematics > of four years. The fundamental courses to masteries were Arithmetic, > Geometry, Music, Astronomy. Later came Diophantine Algebra, and even the > apparition of algorithm and rules. > > You forget Mathematics. It is also taught at universities and applied in > technology companies. > > The discovery of the computer was a discovery made by mathematicians trying > to solve problems in the foundation of Mathematics. > > No. Computers were developed at Blechley Park, UK, during WW2, when the > British were trying to decode German encryption, aka Enigma. AG
Yes, by Turing, who was among those logicians who discovered it, when working on the foundations of Mathematics, at the same time than Church (1936). Post got them with its normal systems and production rules, much before. Moses Schoenfinkel discovered a universal system, but without realising it, the SK combinators in Moscow in 1924, provided equivalent to Church lambda calculus, itself proved equivalent with the Turing machinery. Turing, and then the work of Kleene, made precise the difference between a universal machine and a universal machinery (we get them both at once, but there is an obvious difference). Gödel also got it, without realising it, and he disbelieved in Church and Turing thesis, or Post law, that they got a mathematical definition of the notion of computable and universal machine, but admit it later. There are good reason to doubt, especially for Gödel who was just proving that there is no universal notion of provability, like Tarski was proving that there is no universal notion of definability. Yes, in the case of Turing, he will both discover the mathematical (arithmetical) universal numbers, and build the first step towards physical implementation of a universal machine. But I think that the true physical universal machine will be made by Suze and von Neumann, although Babbage will conceive it 100 years before. All those works have lead to recursion Theory, which study the degrees of complexity of the arithmetical set, in term of degree of non computability. The arithmetical truth is highly not computable, but some relations are more uncomputable than others! It is only the discovery of a precise mathematical notion of computability which makes possible to study the mathematical structure of the degrees of non computability. > > The original debate between Aristotle and Plato was always on the fringe of > the doubt if mathematics or physics were the fundamental science. > > Fictionalism, atheism etc. are not doctrines. They are doctrines asserting > that another doctrine is forever false, like it could not improve, or admit > new interpretation. It is unscientific. You need just to give your theory > and the means to evaluate it. I have given my means of evaluation: to recover > the prediction on the measurable quanta without throwing consciousness under > the rug. > > But you haven't given a plausible argument why a monkey typing long enough, > will produce QM. You don’t need a monkey. I have given the algorithm which generate all computations, and, more importantly, execute in “parallel” (by dovetailing, *all* computations. Then, a priori, physics will be an emergent, non computable a priori, reality emerging from the first person indeterminacy relative to all computations. As the physical reality must be Turing universal, that has to be justified from inside arithmetic, including the physical laws. It is the only way to get, when we assume mechanism, both the quanta and the qualia, together with the genuine association. > It will just be more text and nothing connected to the Scientific Method of > validation, which surely seems to need a physical world for said validation. > AG Not at all. It is hard to imagine a more refutable theory. It explains how to find the physical laws in the head of the universal machine. So we can do that and compare. What strikes the eyes is that we get a many-world structure (I got it before knowing anything about QM), But it took me 30 years to get a quantum logic, justifying also the symmetry of the physical laws, and how they break, from the 1p view of the machines (in arithmetic). Keep in mind that this is not proposed as a new physics, just a (new but also old) metaphysics, testable, and justifying both the 1p (conscious) discourse, and the quanta (which appears to be 1p-plural, the 3p is only arithmetic). There is a many-world interpretation of arithmetic on which almost all universal machine/number converge. Bruno > > Bruno > > > > >> >> @philipthrift >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/36802602-a2a1-4b8f-96a6-3a289daf0e45%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c03b3dfe-2df8-4e9e-bbfe-baa18f6aef1c%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c03b3dfe-2df8-4e9e-bbfe-baa18f6aef1c%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/717C4302-67B3-4649-8E42-65771FFA0C15%40ulb.ac.be.
